Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Friday, December 28, 2012

Los Angeles Actively Aids Criminals in Pursuit of Gun Control

Now let me start by saying that
ordinarily I don’t have a problem with gun buyback programs. While I do believe
that wider gun ownership makes everyone safer and makes our republic safer, I
am pro-choice on gun ownership, so why would I care if you are induced to sell
to the city which in turn will destroy your gun? I also think it is quite unlikely to be
useful, and thus a waste of money, but besides budgetary concerns, I normally have no
deep, principled objection to these photo-ops.

But there is a creepy little gem
hidden in this otherwise positive
story about a gun buyback program in L.A.
It starts out nice enough:

L.A. gun buyback program breaks a record

More weapons are gathered by the city of
Los Angeles than at previous such events. The effort was so successful that the
city ran out of supermarket gift cards and got a private donation.

By Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times

7:36 PM PST, December 27, 2012

A one-day gun
buyback event in Los Angeles on Wednesday gathered 2,037 firearms, including 75
assault weapons and two rocket launchers, officials said. The total was nearly
400 more weapons than were collected in a similar buyback earlier this year.

Mayor Antonio
Villaraigosa said the collection at two locations was so successful that the
city ran out of money for supermarket gift cards and got a private donation
through the city controller to bolster the pot.

Oh joy! But there is a dark side to all of this,
buried toward the end:

Police Chief Charlie
Beck said it was the most successful gun buyback event since the city began the
program.

"Those are
weapons of war, weapons of death," Beck said, motioning to a selection of
military-style weapons on a display table. "These are not hunting guns.
These are not target guns. These are made to put high-velocity, extremely
deadly, long-range rounds down-range as quickly as possible, and they have no
place in our great city."

Beck acknowledged
that the weapons would not be checked for
connections to crimes before being melted down. He said the sheer number
would make that difficult, and he does not want to deter people from turning in
firearms.

(Emphasis added.) You got that?
So if someone stole a gun from you, and couldn’t figure out how to fence
it, don’t worry! The City of Los Angeles
will give you some money in exchange!

Oh, and if you committed a murder
and were concerned that the police might, say, use your gun to match the
ballistics to the bullets in the corpse you left behind, then don’t worry! The City of Los Angeles will helpfully
destroy that evidence for you! And pay
you for the privilege of doing so, even!

And indeed, you have to wonder if
part of the purpose of the program is actively to encourage theft of the
variety indicated above. It bears some
resemblance to nations putting out letters of marque. Letters of marque, you might recall, were
essentially documents legalizing piracy against the enemies of one nation or
another. These were used by nations such
as Britain and France as a way of taking their rivals down a peg, particularly
Spain. By rewarding piracy, they thus
encouraged it against their enemies, providing a low cost way to inflict
potentially catastrophic damage. This no
questions asked approach to turning in guns seems to serve, intentionally or
not, a similar purpose.

Indeed, California law, like most
states, requires pawn shops to take reasonable steps to avoid the receipt of
stolen property. But the City of Angels
will make no effort to prove that the gun is yours before they destroy it. So a woman might buy a gun to protect herself
from an abusive ex, and her child might steal the gun from her and have it
melted down, leaving her defenseless without her consent.

Indeed, wouldn’t that scenario be
a violation of the Fifth Amendment right not to have your property taken
without just compensation? I wonder if
any enterprising attorney in the Los Angeles area might find a particularly
sympathetic client willing to sue the city for this idiocy.

And the worst line in the article
is the one right after they announced they would not be checking if they are
connected with a crime when Police Chief Beck said he is doing it this way,
because “he does not want to deter people from turning in firearms.” Which means he expected criminals to know
that he was doing this ahead of time and expected their behavior to change as a
result. In other words he is admitting
that he knows this will encourage theft and even the destruction of evidence. But, hey it is more important to get a gun
off the street than to find evidence that might convict a murderer. After all, when that murderer disposes of the
murder weapon it will be impossible for him or her to get a new gun,
right? And of course if that murderer
gets a gun, an invisible force field will stop him from shooting anyone else,
right? (Note: I am being sarcastic.)

Indeed, I wonder just how far
ahead of time they made it clear that this buyback would be no
questions asked? How much warning
did the criminals have of this golden opportunity to fence stolen property and
dispose of evidence?

Inquiring minds and all that.

For bonus points, sharp eyed
readers might notice two other points:

The gun buyback also demonstrates the sheer futility of gun laws
themselves. Among the guns turned in
were full automatics and even a few rocket launchers, both of which are
illegal. Surely the gun grabbers will
cheer that those weapons are off the streets, but how many more are there out
there that people were not willing to exchange for a $200 gift card?

Beck’s denunciation of the guns that were turned in indicates his
hostility to all private gun ownership and even the right of self-defense,
calling them “weapons of death.” What
exact gun is not a “weapon of death?” This
echoes a similar refrain seen by the people on twitter who argue that unlike a
car, a knife, and so on, the only use of a gun is killing people.

Well, to be exact it is designed
to kill or seriously wound living things (which doesn’t have to be people). But yes, guns are pretty much 100% designed
to harm other living things. Let’s not
sugar coat it: that is what they are.

But, first, that is a criticism
that can be leveled at all guns. So when
you denounce a gun as a “weapon of death” you are indicating that you hate all
guns.

By the way, I assume that since
Police Chief Beck also said that such weapons “have no place in our great city,”
he will soon have his officers melt down their guns and use pillows instead,
right? Well of course not, what he probably
really means is that civilians
shouldn’t have them, that the only people who should have them are pretty much
the Police and, effectively speaking, the criminals (who might have had their
evidence helpfully destroyed by the police).
The same city that gave us Mark Fuhrman and Rodney King is telling its
residents to trust in the police and only the police to protect their
lives. Like I have said before, not all
cops are bad, etc. Most try their best
to protect everyone regardless of race, color or anything else that inspires
less than the full equal protection of the law.
But 1) exceptions to that rule undeniably exist, and 2) the police can’t
be everywhere, all the time.

And, second, is harming a person,
or even killing a person always a bad thing?
If a man breaks into a woman’s house with a knife and rape on the mind,
and she pulls out a gun and kills him, is that bad? No, in fact in that case, the law of every
state will declare that this is a justified act and thus not a crime. So when you denounce a gun because it is only
designed to kill you are saying you don’t believe there is any circumstance
when killing is justified. You are
saying that you don’t believe in the right of self-defense.

Update: By the way, if the police did actually check to see if any of these weapons are involved in any crime, what are the chances that they would be traced back to the "Fast and Furious" faisco?

---------------------------------------

My wife and I have lost our jobs
due to the harassment of convicted terrorist Brett Kimberlin, including an
attempt to get us killed and to frame me for a crime carrying a sentence of up
to ten years. I know that claim sounds
fantastic, but if you read starting here, you will see absolute proof of these
claims using documentary and video evidence.
If you would like to help in the fight to hold Mr. Kimberlin
accountable, please hit the Blogger’s Defense Team button on the right. And thank you.

Follow me at Twitter @aaronworthing,
mostly for snark and site updates. And
you can purchase my book (or borrow it for free if you have Amazon Prime), Archangel: A Novel of Alternate, Recent
Historyhere.
And you can read a little more about my novel, here.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people, particularly
Brett Kimberlin, of reprehensible
conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the appropriate legal process—such
as the criminal justice system. I do not
want to see vigilante violence against any person or any threat of such
violence. This kind of conduct is
not only morally wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t believe that
any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.

Those rocket launchers are not illegal. They're available at Army/Navy Surplus stores all over the country. They're a one-use item, and not reusable. Also, no automatic weapons were brought in, only semiautos.

We recognize that some of the greatest challenges in fighting diseases of poverty are organizational and managerial, not scientific or medical. With offices in over 25 countries, we partner with governments on a wide range of issues including HIV AIDS Care, malaria, and maternal and child health, as well as strengthening in-country health systems, expanding human resources for health, and improving markets for medicines and the efficiency of health resource allocation.

About Me

Just a regular, sort of cranky moderately conservative lawyer, living in the greater Washington, D.C. and ruminating on law, life and the local spectator sport known as politics.
Btw, if you want to email me, write to edmd5.20.10 [at] gmail.com. I assume by now you understand that you are supposed to use one of those @ symbols for "[at]."